Agenda item

The Leader, or his nominee, to answer any questions raised by members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 14.

 

Note: the deadline for questions to be considered at this meeting is 12 noon on Thursday 18 February 2021.

 

At the time of publication of this agenda six questions were received.

 

Question from Mr A. Peters

The proposal for Phase 2 at the site formerly known as Ceaser Court has united Lower Sunbury residents in opposition to it and even led to Mrs Ceaser formally requesting her family name be disassociated with the site, which must be extremely embarrassing for the Council. The 225 letters of objection received to date note that this application contravenes in a very substantive manner many of the councils own planning guidelines, guidelines agreed in full Council and clearly documented in the Planning Policies and Supplemental Planning Documents.

 

Can the Leader please explain why and how the council feels entitled to submit an application which rides roughshod over its own planning rules? After all if the council cannot show leadership and comply with its own rules can the Leader please explain why should any other developer, be they a single householder or large corporation? In addition, as the council will be both applicant and judge in this substantial development, to avoid conflict of interest, can the Leader confirm that the Council will appoint another authority to review this application at the decision stage? 

 

Question from Revd. A. McLuskey

Why given that it is now seven years since the disastrous 2014 floods – which resulted in the death of poor Zane Gbangbola – and after which promises of improvements were made, have we now seen a repetition of the inundation?

 

Question from Mr P. Thompson

Will the Leader of the Council please explain the process for reviewing the proposed phase 2 of the Benwell House / Ceaser Court development as agreed at the Council meeting on 21st January, and detail what opportunity there will be for public involvement, given the very high level of concern and opposition amongst residents immediately affected and more widely in Lower Sunbury?

 

Question from Mr A. Woodward

Given that Spelthorne Borough Council declared a climate emergency on 14th October 2020, how has this informed the current round of budget planning and when might we expect to see plans for how all departments of the Council will implement changes to address this emergency?

 

Question from Ms S. Orchard

I would like to ask the following question addressed to the Leader of the Council at the full Council meeting on 25th February 2021. Will Spelthorne Borough Council vote to declare their support for the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill that has been submitted to the UK Parliament?

 

Details of the Bill can be found here Climate and Ecology Bill (parliament.uk)

 

Question from Greta Mattar

I would like to ask the following question addressed to the Leader of the Council at the full Council meeting on 25th February 2021.

 

Given the complete collapse of retail, the leisure time economy stagnation, restaurants, cafes, etc., closed temporarily or permanently are SBC taking into account the resultant ‘mood’ of its community in the planning of Staines town that will look and be used differently?

 

You no doubt have aspirations, what is the proposed budget figure to implement these changes?

 

The Mayor reported that, under Standing Order 14, 16 questions had been received from eight members of the public.

 

1.    Question from Mr A. Peters

The proposal for Phase 2 at the site formerly known as Ceaser Court has united Lower Sunbury residents in opposition to it and even led to Mrs Ceaser formally requesting her family name be disassociated with the site, which must be extremely embarrassing for the Council. The 225 letters of objection received to date note that this application contravenes in a very substantive manner many of the councils own planning guidelines, guidelines agreed in full Council and clearly documented in the Planning Policies and Supplemental Planning Documents.

 

Can the Leader please explain why and how the council feels entitled to submit an application which rides roughshod over its own planning rules? After all if the council cannot show leadership and comply with its own rules can the Leader please explain why should any other developer, be they a single householder or large corporation? In addition, as the council will be both applicant and judge in this substantial development, to avoid conflict of interest, can the Leader confirm that the Council will appoint another authority to review this application at the decision stage? 

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

The planning application for what is now to be called Benwell House Phase 2 does not, as you suggest, contravene in a very substantive manner planning policies, guidelines or supplementary planning documents. In light of your contentions, I instructed officers to undertake a thorough review of the application to assess whether or not, in fact, it did, as you say, substantially contravene planning policies and guidelines. I can confirm it does not. It complies fully apart from a very small number of instances where any non-compliance is well within industry tolerances. So, for example, a very minor shortfall in one of the three areas which are used to define impact of a development on daylight to windows of adjoining existing properties. 

 

When developing sites, we also have a duty to ensure we achieve value for money. Every scheme has to cover its own costs as a minimum. We endeavour to meet and exceed policies and guidelines for every development. For example, on this scheme we are well ahead of the curve as we are providing underground bin storage which very few developers do. We are also providing 33% s106 affordable housing and topping this up voluntarily to deliver 50% in total.

 

Notwithstanding this, as you may be aware, I have committed to ensuring that each Council development is reviewed by the Assets Programme Board before they can move forward. This will ensure that there is sufficient challenge and scrutiny of our development programme. I have no doubt that the views expressed by this body will be taken into consideration as we move forward with our development programme in future.

 

As to your last point, the Local Planning Authority is a quasi-judicial body which sits apart from the Council. It has to make decisions based on national and local planning policy, and is not influenced in any way by who the applicant is. There is no conflict of interest and therefore the matter does not need to be passed on to another authority to determine the scheme as you suggest.

2.    Question from Revd. A. McLuskey

Why given that it is now seven years since the disastrous 2014 floods – which resulted in the death of poor Zane Gbangbola – and after which promises of improvements were made, have we now seen a repetition of the inundation?

 

Response from Councillor R. Noble

Thank you for your question regarding the recent high levels on the Thames and the potential for flooding.  As you will recall in 2014 the Prime Minister promised £100million to reduce flooding  - sadly that did not materialise. However, we have continued proactively working on the major River Thames Scheme comprising of new channels to help balance the load of the Thames when high and thus preventing or reducing, where possible, the risk of flooding in Spelthorne, Runnymede and Elmbridge.

 

The River Thames Scheme is expected to cost around £640 million and partners have committed to funding their share of the scheme and are finalising the mechanisms to do this.  Although only a small Council, we have annually since the financial year 2015/16, contributed £49,000 to the scheme’s development as our share to the overall cost.  Additionally, we have put in Spelthorne Borough Council’s capital programme a sum of £1.3million towards the build when it takes place.

 

Surrey County Council has agreed to provide £270million for long-term flood risk management work in Surrey as a whole. This sum includes a £237million contribution to the River Thames Scheme, enabling the next steps of the plan to move forward.

 

Spelthorne Borough Council is working with partners, to secure the approvals needed to construct the scheme. This includes gaining approval from HM Treasury and preparing a planning application, which will be in the form of a Development Consent Order, as the whole scheme is classed as a nationally significant infrastructure project.

 

Along with the planning application, the project team will submit an Environmental Statement. This will consider the environmental impacts of the scheme and how these can be managed and mitigated. These will inform what changes may be needed to the scheme design. The project team are also working on recruiting the construction partner for the scheme. The earliest work is likely to start is 2023, as there are the necessary approvals to achieve including planning consent through the Development Consent Order Process. 

 

In the meantime, we have ensured preparedness for flooding through our emergency plans both from rivers and other sources. The river this year did not cause significant flooding as in 2014 but due to high water levels everywhere across the borough we did have groundwater issues.

 

3.    Question from Mr P. Thompson

Will the Leader of the Council please explain the process for reviewing the proposed phase 2 of the Benwell House / Ceaser Court development as agreed at the Council meeting on 21st January, and detail what opportunity there will be for public involvement, given the very high level of concern and opposition amongst residents immediately affected and more widely in Lower Sunbury?

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

Last night, Cabinet agreed the Terms of Reference, membership and delegations for setting up a formal Assets Programme Board, to sit under the main Cabinet, which will start the process of reviewing the Council’s development programme. This Board will remain in situ until such time as the new Council Committee system (if agreed at the end of March 2021) comes into place. At that point, the membership of the Board will be refreshed and this will almost certainly sit as a sub-committee of the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee.

 

The business case for each development will be reviewed by this new Board, as well as its viability and financial payback, plus risks and issues. The Board will explore what scope there is, or is not, to amend any schemes, bearing in mind the main driver for any residential schemes being that any Council scheme needs to cover its own costs as an absolute minimum.

 

As always under this administration public involvement is key as well as views from ward councillors.

 

The Local Planning Authority will consult residents on any amended plans in the usual way.

 

4.    Question from Mr A. Woodward

Given that Spelthorne Borough Council declared a climate emergency on 14th October 2020, how has this informed the current round of budget planning and when might we expect to see plans for how all departments of the Council will implement changes to address this emergency?

 

Response from Councillor R. Noble

The Council has put large contingencies aside to deal with the climate emergency. All departments are now aware of the impact this will have on them including services such as planning through to grass cutting. We are in the early stages of planning those into next year, but sufficient funds have been put aside to contend with those changes.

 

 

 

5.    Question from Ms S. Orchard

I would like to ask the following question addressed to the Leader of the Council at the full Council meeting on 25th February 2021. Will Spelthorne Borough Council vote to declare their support for the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill that has been submitted to the UK Parliament?

 

Details of the Bill can be found here Climate and Ecology Bill (parliament.uk)

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

Spelthorne Borough Council has declared a climate emergency and is working towards reducing our carbon footprint. We are currently defining our carbon trajectory so that we can best target areas that reduce our carbon emissions to the greatest extent.  We will be undertaking a range of actions in the next year, including installing solar panels on the roof the Depot and trialling an electric dustcart.

 

We understand the nature of the Private Member’s Climate and Ecology Bill, but consider that our actions on climate change and managing our important ecosystems will be fulfilled by the work the Borough Council is currently undertaking in order to meet all government targets.  We will also be engaging with our residents to assist them in reducing their carbon footprint

 

6.    Question from Greta Mattar

I would like to ask the following question addressed to the Leader of the Council at the full Council meeting on 25th February 2021.

 

Given the complete collapse of retail, the leisure time economy stagnation, restaurants, cafes, etc., closed temporarily or permanently are SBC taking into account the resultant ‘mood’ of its community in the planning of Staines town that will look and be used differently?

 

You no doubt have aspirations, what is the proposed budget figure to implement these changes?

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

We are aiming to go out with an Issues and Options consultation on the Staines Development Framework in April 2021. The aim is to hear thoughts from residents across the borough on how the town should be developed in the future. You are right that we are living in uncertain times, both economically and socially, particularly as a result of COVID-19. The consultation gives us the opportunity to consider how we can best address these challenges in a managed and planned way. Clearly this will involve a number of uses including residential, retail, offices, leisure and community, plus the social and transport infrastructure required to support further development.

 

The results of the consultation exercise will help inform how we move forward. There will then be a further round of consultation on a ‘Preferred Development Framework’ which will put more ‘meat on the bones’ in terms of the ‘vision’.

 

The Council is this evening considering the Capital Programme for 2021 to 2025.  This includes a number of Council sites which are currently on hold as a result of the temporary moratorium which was agreed by Cabinet on 24 January. Work will not progress on Thameside, Tothill or Oast House until the three conditions set down by Cabinet have been met

 

7.    Question from Mr C. Hyde

Given that 46% of Surrey's carbon emissions are produced by transport, and a major proportion by cars, encouraging a shift towards travel by walking and cycling is an important means of achieving a reduction in carbon emissions and air pollution as well as bringing health and other benefits.

 

The government and Surrey County Council support walking and cycling improvements and funding is available for Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs). Other local authorities in Surrey have made significant progress in developing LCWIPs and securing funding, including neighbouring Runnymede Borough Council.

 

Has Spelthorne Borough Council developed a LCWIP and sought funding from Surrey County Council, or are plans in place to progress this and to work with Runnymede Borough Council to ensure that plans are coordinated?

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

Spelthorne Borough Council recognises the importance of reducing both carbon emissions and pollution from vehicles. As a result, the Council is currently looking closely at how it can develop a Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) in conjunction with Surrey County Council.   As there are opportunities for cycling and walking routes linked to the River Thames Scheme, we will look to work with neighbouring authorities to see if we can develop “corridors” linking different areas for walking and cycling purposes.

 

8.    Question from Ms K. Sanders

GL Hearn's Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA 2015) calculated an Objectively Assesses Need (OAN) of 552-757 dwellings per annum (dpa) for Spelthorne (versus the existing plan target of 166 dpa until 2026) - see SMHA Nov 2015, p177 (section 10.42). Cllr Nichols made some very relevant points in his response to the SHMA Consultation at the time although I understand he wasn't a councillor then - he comments on the large increase in the housing need numbers versus the current official Local Plan and its likely impact (please see the response document on the Council website (p. 64-69) for his full response). Would the Council agree that the Strategic Housing Market Assessment suggesting a 4-fold increase in the rate of demand vs. the previously adopted plan has helped to create the pressure from developers that we are now witnessing in favour of development?

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

Such a technical question demands a technical answer, and I trust that councillors and members of the public listening will bear with me in the answers that I will give to this and the following question.

 

Whilst there was no fixed methodology in national policy at the time, the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (the SHMA), the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance set out a clear approach to defining the Objectively Assessed Need for housing. This makes it clear that the latest national projections should be seen as a starting point, which is then increased to take account of local circumstances, as necessary.

The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that plans should be prepared on the basis of meeting full needs for market and affordable housing. As an authority, we have no choice but to follow national planning policy to meet these needs, which are all focused on the drive from central government to increase housing delivery at a rate nationally of 300,000 per year. Developers are simply responding to the ‘call’ from the Prime Minister in June 2020 to, in quotes, “Build, Build, Build”.

 

The quicker we can adopt a Local Plan and allocate sites, the better placed we are to reduce speculative development and retain greater control over the destiny and future development of the borough.

 

9.    Question from Ms K. Sanders

Does the Council agree that, when arriving at the OAN, the SHMA leaves aside issues relating to land supply, infrastructure, Green Belt and other constraints but that the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) says these are relevant for the plan-making process at a later stage (as indicated by the SHMA 2015, Section 10.9)? Does the Council also agree that, in arriving at a specific OAN of 603 dwellings per annum (dpa), the SHMA Update Report (Oct 2019) also does not factor in the relevance of Green Belt or the other constraints mentioned above and hence leaves those issues for the Local Plan process we are in now?

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

That is correct – the calculation of housing need is ‘policy off’ meaning it does not take account of external factors. The Planning Practice Guidance states that assessing housing need is the first step in the process of deciding how many homes need to be planned for. It should be undertaken separately from assessing land availability, establishing a housing requirement figure and preparing policies to address how needs will be met. It is through these latter factors that local constraints should be considered

 

 

10.Question from Ms K. Sanders

Would the Council concede that Green Belt policy as set out in national planning policy is one area which can restrict development and hence the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) as acknowledged by ARUP's Green Belt Assessment (Stage) 1 Report, Section 3.1.3 (Ministerial Statements)?

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Footnote 6 sets out the designations whereby there is a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development. Green Belt is included in this list.

 

Paragraph 136 of the NPPF goes on to state that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation of plans. All other reasonable options for meeting identified needs for development should be fully examined before determining if boundaries should be altered.

 

It is therefore up to the Council to explore all other options for meeting development needs before it considers Green Belt release. This is what we have done.

 

11.Question from Ms K. Sanders

The Council has restated its "deep concerns" about the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) figure of (now) 606 dwellings per annum while saying in its Preferred Options Consultation Response document that it ultimately has to accept government targets. However, would the Council concede that GL Hearn's Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update (October 2019), also states (in section 1.8) that it is possible to adopt an alternative approach to calculating the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) if exceptional circumstances can justify it?

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

Planning Practice Guidance states that if it is felt that circumstances warrant an alternative approach, this may be used. However, any authorities choosing to go down this route can expect this to be forensically scrutinised at examination.

 

Where an alternative approach results in a lower housing need figure than that identified using the standard method, the strategic policy making authority will need to demonstrate, using robust evidence, that the figure is based on realistic assumptions of demographic growth and that there are exceptional local circumstances that justify deviating from the standard method.

 

12.Question from Ms K. Sanders

Given that the OAN hasn't previously factored in major policy constraints but that the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) allows for this at the Local Plan stage and national guidance specifically mentions that Green Belt policy can restrict the OAN, why can't the Council now factor in these major policy constraints i.e. a 65% local adjustment factor to the OAN on the basis of Spelthorne's Green Belt (or failing that, at a minimum, its PHYSICAL environmental constraints such as its high proportion of reservoirs and functional flood plain)?

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

It is for members to decide on the Local Plan strategy to pursue. The Council must demonstrate that it has explored all options for meeting its housing needs in full before considering if an alternative approach is required. This includes working with neighbouring authorities and assessing all possible alternative site options.

 

We are still working through this process in order to establish how needs can best be met through the Local Plan. The Plan is unlikely to be found sound if we have not fully examined options for meeting our housing needs with robust evidence required to support the proposed approach.

 

13.Question from Ms K. Sanders

At last February's Council meeting you provided the table below showing that the Local Plan Preferred site allocations on Green Belt equated to 53 hectares of Spelthorne's total Green Belt area (so 1.6% of 3,324 hectares) and the areas subject to major policy constraints (e.g. reservoirs, Flood Zone 3b etc) totalled 1,665 hectares so pretty much exactly half of Spelthorne's Green Belt leaving 1,659 hectares of Green Belt which are not reservoirs or subject to other major policy constraints.

 

As also mentioned in your answer at the time, you didn't have a measure for the proportion of previously developed Green Belt land (PDL) bar the land that had planning permission (extant, under construction or recently completed) which was approximately 70 hectares. It was suggested that work would be done on this. 

 

a) Does the Local Plan Working Group now have an answer for the total area of Spelthorne Green Belt which is already considered "Previously Developed Land"?

 

b) Please could you split out the area of Flood Zone 3b?

 

c) Given that Shepperton Studios, the "Eco Park", a number of schools such as Bishop Wand (together with Spelthorne Gym) and other infrastructure are already on Green Belt land, would the Council concede that the preferred Green Belt site allocations in Local Plan proposals represent a considerably greater proportion of the borough's "developable" Green Belt than the 1.6% of Green Belt mentioned in the Preferred Options Consultation document?”

 

Evidence provided for written response, Feb 2020

 

Area	Size (ha)	Comments
Total Spelthorne Green Belt	3324
Reservoirs, Flood zone 3b, SSSI, SPA, Common Land	1665	Included within GB
Land with Planning permission (extant; under construction; or recently completed)	70	Commercial – 61.88 (all PDL except part of Shepperton Studios) Residential – 7.60
Preferred allocation sites	53

 

PDL = Previously Developed land

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

a) The Council has not yet been able to consider this. This would involve creating a new mapping system and drawing all development in the Green Belt from previous decades. This would be a large draw on resources, and whilst we plan to explore this in future there is no guarantee as to how quickly this could be produced. There are currently other workstreams within the Local Plan that need to take priority.

 

b) Flood zone 3b is the functional floodplain. This totals 618 hectares across the whole of Spelthorne, or approximately 573 hectares within the Green Belt.

 

c) There are evidently areas within the Green Belt that are already developed which therefore reduces the overall ‘developable’ land available.

 

14.Question from Ms K. Sanders

In a written response in October 2020, Cllr McIlroy said that tenders from seven consultants had been considered before awarding the Green Belt Assessment to ARUP. Please can the Council provide the names of the other consultants considered?

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

The following firms submitted proposals to the call for tender: Arcus; Arup; Peter Brett; DLP; Gillespies; OHES; and Wardell Armstrong.

 

15.Question from Ms K. Sanders

ARUP's Green Belt Assessment Stage 1 Report (Feb 2018) states that it is an independent and objective assessment of Spelthorne's Green Belt. Is the Council aware of the "Perspectives" article on ARUP's website "Is Green Belt Policy Fit for Purpose?" in which the author states that they ‘believe that green belt needs a fundamental re-think because it holds some of the answers to the UK's housing crisis’?”

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

Arup is a multi-national company and has a range of publications across several fields that it is involved in. It is not uncommon for articles to be published within the planning profession on a range of topical issues.

 

There is no reason whatsoever to assume the publication of an article by an individual within the company would have any impact upon the output of the Green Belt Assessment. Arup have produced a robust methodology to conduct their assessment and this has been reviewed by the Council. Officers have, as you would expect, critically reviewed the work produced by Arup at regular intervals to ensure its thoroughness, and are satisfied with its objectiveness.

 

Through the Royal Town Planning Institute, planners are bound to act with honesty and integrity and to utilise independent professional judgment in decision making.

 

16.Question from Ms K. Sanders

In the responses to the Issues and Options Consultation, Montagu Evans stated that their client Angle Property (the owner of the Bugle Nurseries and Croysdale Green Belt sites) met with ARUP at the Council offices in January 2018. What was the purpose and outcomes of that meeting and which other stakeholders were invited to that particular engagement session?

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

The Council and Arup held time-limited sessions with landowners of sites that had been promoted to the call for sites in January 2018. The purpose of these meetings was for Arup to explain the findings of the report to landowners. These meetings were purely technical and went through the methodology employed as well as the reasoning behind the scoring given.